lots of identical bytes being redundantly pushed to many consumers, where broadcast would be more appropriate and efficient
So, sending identical packets to everyone is somehow more bandwidth efficient than sending packets to only those who want them? Doesn't that seem backwards to anyone else? Furthermore, couldn't you define broadcasting as precisely the act of sending identical bytes to many consumers?! I'm teh confused.
Well, I wasn't being any more of a smart-ass than usual. Read my past postings to figure out the level of 'usual'.
I really do think if the game is trying to be a 'second life' then it should damn well have all the crappy stuff real life has. Like jury duty. Put this virtual rapist on a virtual trial with virtual jurors and make the jurors show up or face possible contempt charges.
Oh wait, I guess Second Life glosses over some of the less... ahh entertaining (sarcasm) parts of real life. Guess that's why it's a GAME. (otherwise I can't imagine anyone wanting to play it when they can get the real thing):)
All this talk about FPS games makes me want to pick one up again. I've been in WoW gridlock for two years. And now that Blizzard has completely lost their sense of class direction and development, maybe it's time to cancel my three accounts!
Ask anybody. If you're playing a game like CS the best way to tell if someone is cheating is to get in their head. That means getting into a first person camera view of what they're doing -- how they move, their aim, their reaction times, etc.
99% of the time you'll be able to tell if someone is a cheater. Usually that's because they have a tell-tale sign. Maybe they seemed to just know someone was coming around a blind spot every time. Maybe you aren't totally sure they're cheating but then you see that they have a reaction time that seems instant. No human has an instant reaction time. In fact, it's usually measured in hundreds of milliseconds, and certainly not tens.
Often you can tell because the person has absolutely amazing aim and yet their normal mouse movements when there's nobody or nothing to aim at are erratic and disorganized. And on top of that these people usually have trouble navigating the tougher terrain and jumps in an FPS... which is weird because they have incredible hand-eye for aim but not so for jumps. This is almost NEVER the case for a truly skilled player. Their jumps and other forms of acrobatics are usually spot on.
The thing is, it's usually not just one sign. It's a bunch of them together that tell you to watch somebody with a lot more scrutiny. Often you'll reach a consensus amongst the other players and then the suspected cheater will be booted or banned.
And of course on the other side of this coin is the fact that most players can recognize real skill.
Does this stop 100% of cheaters? No... but it really does stop the majority. Sometimes it hurts non-cheaters who are really just very skilled. I'm not bragging, but I've been booted for cheating several times when I wasn't cheating. But that's usually when I go to a new server and nobody knows who I am. Which is where reputation comes into play. Once a server community gets to know you they remember you and know you're skilled. Of course, even then sometimes they boot you. But then we're not talking about cheating anymore, we're talking about jealousy and envy, and that's a different thing entirely.
Your point about the difference in perspectives between a player who simply has a competitive goal and an observer who is more focused on the violence is a good one.
It seems to me the problem isn't video games, but rather that some people are impartial to violence. If that's the case then I doubt that video games have anything but a positive effect on society at large. Why? Because instead of going out to the Mall or some social scene and getting physically violent the impartially violent are now unleashing their violence in video games, which only recently have been able to really portray violence and put you "in there" and possibly only recently quell the urge to commit it "out there."
I really like this topic. So I am wondering if I should use my 4 remaining mod points or post something here... Any thoughts?
Ahh.. damn.
But seriously. We've known there's a link to pretending to do something and actually ending up doing it. Look at the prisoner vs. guard studies in that college of which the name I forget... Basic idea: normal people pretended to be prisoners and other normal people pretended to be guards. After a while, the people who were pretending to be prisoners actually FELT like prisoners (even though they could leave whenever they wanted in reality) and the Guards.. oh man the guards... they started getting violent and abusive. We're talking college students.. I mean, they're the epitome of maturity, I don't understand how this could've happened:)
Ok so that wasn't entirely serious. Let me try again. People who like violence will play violent video games. This does not mean the game turned them violent. It was already in them. It's human nature. Really.
I find my HTC Hermes to be a pretty good device for the money. Paid $400 for it. It's a phone, a pocket PC with WiFi G, and it has a qwerty keyboard that slides out. (If you want to add your stowaway keyboard you can, but I find I have no trouble with using the slide-out one). I also has a 2.0MP camera and of course a MicroSD slot so it has replaced my iPod completely, which I am thankful for because I despise iTunes. It synchronizes with my Outlook appointments flawlessly. It's just.. slick. I wish I had the GPS reciever one, but I'll get that one next.
First let me disclaim that I don't believe the USA (or UK) is operated by a shadow government. However, I don't believe such a thing is impossible. Which is why I'm playing D.A. to this argument.
The cryptography example you provided is inherently flawed. The only thing needed to subvert it is a layer of deception set up by the people who count the votes. They can simply send you your vote back via the system you described... and never use it for anything else. Everyone will think they voted for who they voted for, while they may not have. And they'll never know any different. The reason for this is simple. If votes are counted by any private organization there will always be the possibility that the organization tampers with the data internally. The only possible way to garauntee an accurate result is public scrutiny of every single vote. When all votes are counted for and all individuals agree with their votes and the results line up with the winner of the election then, and only then, will you know for sure that the election was not rigged. And the only way to achieve that is to make all votes available to every citizen.
It sounds like conspiracy theory -- it IS. Like I said, I don't believe the USA (or the UK) is operated by some clandestine group of world-wide power players. But I can't prove it. And I'd feel a little better if I could. Especially when elections declare a winner (Al Gore) and somebody else ends up in office. Just an example.
Ok let me exercise a little mind over Mattern for a second.
People aren't going to rethink. People don't care.
So basically you think it's hopeless from the start. Not exactly a good standpoint for me to argue against, but I'll give it shot nevertheless.
People would rather rationalize their action than admit the possibility of being wrong.
I want to avoid general stereotypes of 'people' but I agree this happens to be the case. What I do not agree with is how this will affect a system of open voting. Furthermore, I already stated that I did not *ever* claim votes should be sold. Only that they should be out in the open. Indeed between the two systems, one with private voting and one with public, there appears to be precisely zero difference between them with regards to buying votes and the legality of that action!
We're talking about people who can't be bothered to take half-an-hour to vote in a convenient polling station, no matter what's at stake.
We aboslutely are. Which is exactly the reason online voting is important. Because it gets those people who cannot make it to the polls involved. And don't kid yourself, not everybody who misses a chance to vote did so because they were lazy.
And the money will be there. GWB spent *$360 million* on his 2004 election. At $10 a vote, that would have bought 36 million votes, in an election where 120 million voted. And, yes, I firmly believe he would have found plenty of takers at $10 a vote.
I've already stated that my original thoughts were not about buying votes. However, after entertaining the idea I still think the system would find a balance. There are extremely rich candidates on both sides of the partisan lines. It's not likely that the difference in payment between them would be large. Hence I don't see an imbalance on a partisan basis regarding buying votes. For example, John Kerry is wealthy beyond words.
2) GWB will be impeached? Well, gee, he's got this Congress right here that he bought and paid for, same way he bought and paid for the Presidency. Who's going to impeach him?
Checks and balances. Buying someone does not equate to them having loyalty to you. As soon as their greed or desires bring them to see you as an enemy they will turn on you.
In any case, I'm not really worried about this whole 'buying votes' business. For one, because like I said earlier, it's already possible (and happens) and it wouldn't matter if votes became public, and for two, because I think that human nature would balance it out in the end.
I'm really more interested in the possible downsides of public voting as compared to the obvious upside: everyone knows the elections weren't rigged by a clandestine organization, ever.
And the people who didn't like you and want to kill you on the basis of your vote aren't your friends anyway! Seriously, I think you're living in some fantasy libertarian lala land.
You may be right. Maybe I'm naive to think people would be able to work together despite knowing who each other voted for. I guess I'm delusional to think the human race can get along with each other and cooperate despite the fact that some of them may have voted for a different politician. I thought we were beyond that. I personally respect the opinions of my fellow citizens and I respect their right to vote for whoever they choose. I would hope they extend me the same respect. Of course, greed will always be a factor. Electing one politician could very easily make or break certain types of organizations. It would definitely raise the degree of partisanship in many companies. And of course that would drive things like intimidation. But I still think eventually it would smooth out and the lines would be drawn more clearly. Most importantly I think the people who endorsed tolerance and understanding and remained non-partisan would be the most successful. I think it would be the party hard-liners that would get pushed to the periphery, leaving the rest of (the majority) us sensible folk to actually accomplish something.
That's not true. There are plenty of ways for the people controlling the process to cryptographically verify a vote without exposing it publically using techniques like hashing and digital signatures. IF you look through prior Slashdot discussions there are a number of novel paper-based approaches as well.
Fixed.
Point is, when I vote, I sometimes feel like there's no way for me to know if it really counted. When you see what everyone voted for, and NONE of those people are up in arms because their vote was not what they entered, then you aboslutely know for a fact that the process is legit. Because you can count them yourself, independently, and so can everybody else. Everyone will arrive at the same numbers and there will be zero doubt as to the winner.
Yeah, I guess it is. It creates a system of balance that most people ignore or don't see entirely. Example of how it *might* have worked out. (I am not for or against anybody in this example)
Year 2000 presidential election.
GWB 'bribes' or 'buys' enough votes to win. 9/11 ensues. War and economic unrest ensue. People who sold their vote in 2000 are wondering if it was worth it. How much did they get? $100 each? $1000? $1000 seems barely possible considering to 'buy' just 1000 votes at such a cost would be a million dollars. Buying enough to just *hope* to win would be enormously costly, especially considering it doesn't garauntee a win. But for the sake of argument, GWB bought millions of votes for untold millions of dollars and he won. Nevermind that even if you DO buy your way in you are still impeachable. But the 2004 election rolls around. People are thinkin maybe they sold their vote to the wrong person. So they sell their vote to someone else. GWB doesn't get re-elected. The war in Iraq never takes this course. Blah blah ad nauseam.
I'll leave it to you to decide if it would've been a good or bad thing. I'm just saying, I happen to think this system would be more robust than you think. Not to mention, I never said 'buying' votes should be legal. I simply said make them public. Make selling your vote and attempting to buy votes a federal offense...
Anyway, you see why when you say "Wow. Just...wow." I don't quite get why.
I thought about this whole purchasing votes idea. I tried to imagine that I was one of the people who sold their vote. Let's say I sold it to Bush in '04. For example sake let's say now in '07 I really regret selling my vote to him because I think he's screwed up really badly. Maybe this next election I won't sell my vote, and in fact will go vote for who I think is the best. This is probably better than the original situation, in which I never would've voted at all.
I think e-voting can work. As long as the votes are kept totally public then I see it as being viable. It's the only way you can be sure everyone's vote was really counted how it should've been. The moment you start hiding votes and secreting them away you introduce the possibility for corruption from the organizers.
So, my question is: what's wrong with everyone knowing what everyone else voted? Does it create bias in the workplace? Do Liberal bosses see their Conservative employees votes and thus not give them raises, or worse, in an at-will state such as mine, just fire them outright?
Is this the kind of person you want to be your boss anyway? Wouldn't the system naturally cleanse itself from people like that? Sure, at first it'd be a bumpy road and a lot of chaos would ensue, but it seems to be the final state of things would be a lot smoother than the state of not even knowing if your vote was counted right, or if the people counting the votes stacked them somehow. It just seems like hiding votes has always been a crutch.
Someone tell me how this is better than the alternatives?
This thing has to carry heavy batteries or fuel, limiting its range. And it's ungodly loud. A small dirigible is silent and I imagine you can make one pretty small given how lightweight today's surveillance tech is.
Seems like the only thing this might have over a blimp is speed. But if it's speed you want... what's wrong with a winged drone that can do tight circles over an area?
Is it the VTOL aspect?
I just want to know what the US mility finds so great about this, and the article doesn't really say.
You're right, the 2nd declension plural would be 'viri' not 'virii'.
But, language rules are sometimes broken. And virii looks better than viri and sounds better than viruses. It might be wrong, but that doesn't mean I can't like it more than what's 'right' as defined by some self-described language nazi.;p
Not sure if the article wants me to be surprised by this. What percent of all virii in humans are in the family of the common cold or influenza? There has to be some kind of parallel here.
Weird, but as I was writing this something tried to change my default search page. Usually I wouldn't say this, but I hope it was Microsoft;p
WoW gold sales are so clandestine (to hide from Blizzard so the accounts don't get banned) that I think trying to effectively track these transactions will be futile and possibly cost just as much as the taxes would bring in, if not MORE. For games like WoW that are against this type of activity there is simply no workable tax model. So, to Govt.: Step off. This baby is under the table.
TLF
P.S. This doesn't even begin to address the fact that the majority of gold sales happen from overseas providers. If this is truly business, then they already have the advantage over any USA counterparts. Is that what we want?
Regarding holes: I was thinking about this earlier. So if you caged the theater walls and left the exits open would that be enough to get a signal through? Could you cage the surface of the doors?
I just wonder about cost. How much per ft^2 for a cage that stops cell traffic?
Slashdot Mirror
So, sending identical packets to everyone is somehow more bandwidth efficient than sending packets to only those who want them? Doesn't that seem backwards to anyone else? Furthermore, couldn't you define broadcasting as precisely the act of sending identical bytes to many consumers?! I'm teh confused.
TLF
I *still* cringe to this day when someone asks for computer help and it starts out with "Well, when I log on to my AOL..."
TLF
Well, I wasn't being any more of a smart-ass than usual. Read my past postings to figure out the level of 'usual'.
:)
I really do think if the game is trying to be a 'second life' then it should damn well have all the crappy stuff real life has. Like jury duty. Put this virtual rapist on a virtual trial with virtual jurors and make the jurors show up or face possible contempt charges.
Oh wait, I guess Second Life glosses over some of the less... ahh entertaining (sarcasm) parts of real life. Guess that's why it's a GAME. (otherwise I can't imagine anyone wanting to play it when they can get the real thing)
TLF
...there should be virtual punishment.
And that is all.
TLF
:(
All this talk about FPS games makes me want to pick one up again. I've been in WoW gridlock for two years. And now that Blizzard has completely lost their sense of class direction and development, maybe it's time to cancel my three accounts!
Ask anybody. If you're playing a game like CS the best way to tell if someone is cheating is to get in their head. That means getting into a first person camera view of what they're doing -- how they move, their aim, their reaction times, etc.
99% of the time you'll be able to tell if someone is a cheater. Usually that's because they have a tell-tale sign. Maybe they seemed to just know someone was coming around a blind spot every time. Maybe you aren't totally sure they're cheating but then you see that they have a reaction time that seems instant. No human has an instant reaction time. In fact, it's usually measured in hundreds of milliseconds, and certainly not tens.
Often you can tell because the person has absolutely amazing aim and yet their normal mouse movements when there's nobody or nothing to aim at are erratic and disorganized. And on top of that these people usually have trouble navigating the tougher terrain and jumps in an FPS... which is weird because they have incredible hand-eye for aim but not so for jumps. This is almost NEVER the case for a truly skilled player. Their jumps and other forms of acrobatics are usually spot on.
The thing is, it's usually not just one sign. It's a bunch of them together that tell you to watch somebody with a lot more scrutiny. Often you'll reach a consensus amongst the other players and then the suspected cheater will be booted or banned.
And of course on the other side of this coin is the fact that most players can recognize real skill.
Does this stop 100% of cheaters? No... but it really does stop the majority. Sometimes it hurts non-cheaters who are really just very skilled. I'm not bragging, but I've been booted for cheating several times when I wasn't cheating. But that's usually when I go to a new server and nobody knows who I am. Which is where reputation comes into play. Once a server community gets to know you they remember you and know you're skilled. Of course, even then sometimes they boot you. But then we're not talking about cheating anymore, we're talking about jealousy and envy, and that's a different thing entirely.
TLF
Your point about the difference in perspectives between a player who simply has a competitive goal and an observer who is more focused on the violence is a good one.
It seems to me the problem isn't video games, but rather that some people are impartial to violence. If that's the case then I doubt that video games have anything but a positive effect on society at large. Why? Because instead of going out to the Mall or some social scene and getting physically violent the impartially violent are now unleashing their violence in video games, which only recently have been able to really portray violence and put you "in there" and possibly only recently quell the urge to commit it "out there."
TLF
TLF
I really like this topic. So I am wondering if I should use my 4 remaining mod points or post something here... Any thoughts?
:)
Ahh.. damn.
But seriously. We've known there's a link to pretending to do something and actually ending up doing it. Look at the prisoner vs. guard studies in that college of which the name I forget... Basic idea: normal people pretended to be prisoners and other normal people pretended to be guards. After a while, the people who were pretending to be prisoners actually FELT like prisoners (even though they could leave whenever they wanted in reality) and the Guards.. oh man the guards... they started getting violent and abusive. We're talking college students.. I mean, they're the epitome of maturity, I don't understand how this could've happened
Ok so that wasn't entirely serious. Let me try again. People who like violence will play violent video games. This does not mean the game turned them violent. It was already in them. It's human nature. Really.
TLF
TLF
Football, baseball, hockey, basketball, dodgeball, foosball, ping-pong, bocce ball, lawn darts, beer pong, soccer, racing, raquetball, handball, volleyball, wrestling, javelin and frisbee golf have been linked to violence.
This can mean only one thing! Video games are at fault! Down with teh gory bits! Er.. wait...
TLF
I find my HTC Hermes to be a pretty good device for the money. Paid $400 for it. It's a phone, a pocket PC with WiFi G, and it has a qwerty keyboard that slides out. (If you want to add your stowaway keyboard you can, but I find I have no trouble with using the slide-out one). I also has a 2.0MP camera and of course a MicroSD slot so it has replaced my iPod completely, which I am thankful for because I despise iTunes. It synchronizes with my Outlook appointments flawlessly. It's just.. slick. I wish I had the GPS reciever one, but I'll get that one next.
TLF
First let me disclaim that I don't believe the USA (or UK) is operated by a shadow government. However, I don't believe such a thing is impossible. Which is why I'm playing D.A. to this argument.
The cryptography example you provided is inherently flawed. The only thing needed to subvert it is a layer of deception set up by the people who count the votes. They can simply send you your vote back via the system you described... and never use it for anything else. Everyone will think they voted for who they voted for, while they may not have. And they'll never know any different. The reason for this is simple. If votes are counted by any private organization there will always be the possibility that the organization tampers with the data internally. The only possible way to garauntee an accurate result is public scrutiny of every single vote. When all votes are counted for and all individuals agree with their votes and the results line up with the winner of the election then, and only then, will you know for sure that the election was not rigged. And the only way to achieve that is to make all votes available to every citizen.
It sounds like conspiracy theory -- it IS. Like I said, I don't believe the USA (or the UK) is operated by some clandestine group of world-wide power players. But I can't prove it. And I'd feel a little better if I could. Especially when elections declare a winner (Al Gore) and somebody else ends up in office. Just an example.
TLF
In any case, I'm not really worried about this whole 'buying votes' business. For one, because like I said earlier, it's already possible (and happens) and it wouldn't matter if votes became public, and for two, because I think that human nature would balance it out in the end.
I'm really more interested in the possible downsides of public voting as compared to the obvious upside: everyone knows the elections weren't rigged by a clandestine organization, ever.
TLF
You may be right. Maybe I'm naive to think people would be able to work together despite knowing who each other voted for. I guess I'm delusional to think the human race can get along with each other and cooperate despite the fact that some of them may have voted for a different politician. I thought we were beyond that. I personally respect the opinions of my fellow citizens and I respect their right to vote for whoever they choose. I would hope they extend me the same respect. Of course, greed will always be a factor. Electing one politician could very easily make or break certain types of organizations. It would definitely raise the degree of partisanship in many companies. And of course that would drive things like intimidation. But I still think eventually it would smooth out and the lines would be drawn more clearly. Most importantly I think the people who endorsed tolerance and understanding and remained non-partisan would be the most successful. I think it would be the party hard-liners that would get pushed to the periphery, leaving the rest of (the majority) us sensible folk to actually accomplish something.
TLF
Fixed.
Point is, when I vote, I sometimes feel like there's no way for me to know if it really counted. When you see what everyone voted for, and NONE of those people are up in arms because their vote was not what they entered, then you aboslutely know for a fact that the process is legit. Because you can count them yourself, independently, and so can everybody else. Everyone will arrive at the same numbers and there will be zero doubt as to the winner.
TLF
Yeah, I guess it is. It creates a system of balance that most people ignore or don't see entirely. Example of how it *might* have worked out. (I am not for or against anybody in this example)
Year 2000 presidential election.
GWB 'bribes' or 'buys' enough votes to win. 9/11 ensues. War and economic unrest ensue.
People who sold their vote in 2000 are wondering if it was worth it. How much did they get? $100 each? $1000? $1000 seems barely possible considering to 'buy' just 1000 votes at such a cost would be a million dollars. Buying enough to just *hope* to win would be enormously costly, especially considering it doesn't garauntee a win.
But for the sake of argument, GWB bought millions of votes for untold millions of dollars and he won. Nevermind that even if you DO buy your way in you are still impeachable.
But the 2004 election rolls around. People are thinkin maybe they sold their vote to the wrong person. So they sell their vote to someone else. GWB doesn't get re-elected. The war in Iraq never takes this course. Blah blah ad nauseam.
I'll leave it to you to decide if it would've been a good or bad thing. I'm just saying, I happen to think this system would be more robust than you think. Not to mention, I never said 'buying' votes should be legal. I simply said make them public. Make selling your vote and attempting to buy votes a federal offense...
Anyway, you see why when you say "Wow. Just...wow." I don't quite get why.
I thought about this whole purchasing votes idea. I tried to imagine that I was one of the people who sold their vote. Let's say I sold it to Bush in '04. For example sake let's say now in '07 I really regret selling my vote to him because I think he's screwed up really badly. Maybe this next election I won't sell my vote, and in fact will go vote for who I think is the best. This is probably better than the original situation, in which I never would've voted at all.
TLF
I think e-voting can work. As long as the votes are kept totally public then I see it as being viable. It's the only way you can be sure everyone's vote was really counted how it should've been. The moment you start hiding votes and secreting them away you introduce the possibility for corruption from the organizers.
So, my question is: what's wrong with everyone knowing what everyone else voted? Does it create bias in the workplace? Do Liberal bosses see their Conservative employees votes and thus not give them raises, or worse, in an at-will state such as mine, just fire them outright?
Is this the kind of person you want to be your boss anyway? Wouldn't the system naturally cleanse itself from people like that? Sure, at first it'd be a bumpy road and a lot of chaos would ensue, but it seems to be the final state of things would be a lot smoother than the state of not even knowing if your vote was counted right, or if the people counting the votes stacked them somehow. It just seems like hiding votes has always been a crutch.
But please, correct me if I'm wrong...
TLF
Obviously to pull a prank on poor unsuspecting, unknowing-of-the-infinite-blackness-of-that-hole that is goatse.
In fact, thanks for mentioning it. Time for some fun.
TLF
Someone tell me how this is better than the alternatives?
This thing has to carry heavy batteries or fuel, limiting its range. And it's ungodly loud. A small dirigible is silent and I imagine you can make one pretty small given how lightweight today's surveillance tech is.
Seems like the only thing this might have over a blimp is speed. But if it's speed you want... what's wrong with a winged drone that can do tight circles over an area?
Is it the VTOL aspect?
I just want to know what the US mility finds so great about this, and the article doesn't really say.
TLF
You're right, the 2nd declension plural would be 'viri' not 'virii'.
;p
But, language rules are sometimes broken. And virii looks better than viri and sounds better than viruses. It might be wrong, but that doesn't mean I can't like it more than what's 'right' as defined by some self-described language nazi.
Not sure if the article wants me to be surprised by this. What percent of all virii in humans are in the family of the common cold or influenza?
;p
There has to be some kind of parallel here.
Weird, but as I was writing this something tried to change my default search page. Usually I wouldn't say this, but I hope it was Microsoft
TLF
WoW gold sales are so clandestine (to hide from Blizzard so the accounts don't get banned) that I think trying to effectively track these transactions will be futile and possibly cost just as much as the taxes would bring in, if not MORE. For games like WoW that are against this type of activity there is simply no workable tax model. So, to Govt.: Step off. This baby is under the table.
TLF
P.S. This doesn't even begin to address the fact that the majority of gold sales happen from overseas providers. If this is truly business, then they already have the advantage over any USA counterparts. Is that what we want?
ROFL.. I hadn't thought of that. I'll have to try it.
Thank you.
TLF
You'd be amazed what kind of crazy-ass posts you can find if you browse at -1.
TLF
Regarding holes: I was thinking about this earlier. So if you caged the theater walls and left the exits open would that be enough to get a signal through? Could you cage the surface of the doors?
I just wonder about cost. How much per ft^2 for a cage that stops cell traffic?
TLF